In re the Estate of Piterniak

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of Piterniak

51 A.D.3d 931, 856 N.Y.S.2d 878

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMay 20, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 51 A.D.3d 931 (In re the Estate of Piterniak) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re the Estate of Piterniak, 51 A.D.3d 931, 856 N.Y.S.2d 878 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

In a probate proceeding, in which Robert J. Piterniak and Laura Piterniak petitioned for specific performance of an alleged agreement for the sale of real property, the petitioners appeal from an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Suffolk County (Czygier, S.), dated June 11, 2007, which granted the motion of Ellen Cinque for summary judgment dismissing the petition.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The writings relied upon by the petitioners to establish the alleged agreement among the parties were insufficient to satisfy the statute of frauds, as they left for future negotiations certain essential terms of the contemplated contract and were subject to the execution of a more formal contract of sale (see Nesbitt v Penalver, 40 AD3d 596, 597-599 [2007]; Sabetfard v Djavaheri Realty Corp., 18 AD3d 640, 641 [2005]; Rahimzadeh v M.A.C. Assoc., 304 AD2d 636 [2003]; Checkla v Stone Meadow Homes, 280 AD2d 510 [2001]; O’Brien v West, 199 AD2d 369, 370 [1993]; Dutchess Dev. Co. v Jo-Jam Estates, 134 AD2d 478 [1987]).

The petitioners’ remaining contentions are without merit. Spolzino, J.P, Garni, Dickerson and Eng, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In a probate proceeding, in which Robert J. Piterniak and Laura Piterniak petitioned for specific performance of an alleged agreement for the sale of real property, the petitioners appeal from an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Suffolk County (Czygier, S.), dated June 11, 2007, which granted the motion of Ellen Cinque for summary judgment dismissing the petition.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The writings relied upon by the petitioners to establish the alleged agreement among the parties were insufficient to satisfy the statute of frauds, as they left for future negotiations certain essential terms of the contemplated contract and were subject to the execution of a more formal contract of sale (see Nesbitt v Penalver, 40 AD3d 596, 597-599 [2007]; Sabetfard v Djavaheri Realty Corp., 18 AD3d 640, 641 [2005]; Rahimzadeh v M.A.C. Assoc., 304 AD2d 636 [2003]; Checkla v Stone Meadow Homes, 280 AD2d 510 [2001]; O’Brien v West, 199 AD2d 369, 370 [1993]; Dutchess Dev. Co. v Jo-Jam Estates, 134 AD2d 478 [1987]).

The petitioners’ remaining contentions are without merit. Spolzino, J.P, Garni, Dickerson and Eng, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

51 A.D.3d 931, 856 N.Y.S.2d 878, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-piterniak-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack